Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning a British memo about pre-Iraq war intelligence.

As you may know, on May 1, 2005, the London Sunday Times published a memo written by British foreign policy aide Matthew Rycroft based on notes he had taken during a July 2002 meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisors. The memo reflected Mr. Rycroft's opinion that the U.S. was intent on removing Saddam Hussein from power and was fixing intelligence around that policy.

Clearly there have been shortcomings in intelligence about Iraq 's prewar capabilities. However, the U.S. was not alone in our assessment about Saddam's weapons programs. Foreign intelligence agencies, including the British and Australian services, as well as the UN, believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ( WMDs ). UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which passed unanimously in 2002, stated that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security because of its WMD proliferation.

After Saddam was removed from power, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was assigned the task of investigating Saddam's WMD program. The ISG report by Charles Duelfer details Saddam Hussein's attempts to end U.N. sanctions against him while preserving his capacity to reconstitute his WMD programs once the sanctions were lifted.

Saddam Hussein used WMDs against his own people and clearly did not abandon his WMD ambitions. He personally directed efforts to hide and preserve documentation related to Iraq 's nuclear program and prevented Iraqi scientists from leaving Iraq , enabling him to restart his WMD programs. Although stockpiles of WMDs were not found in Iraq, the facts contained in the Duelfer report show that Saddam Hussein maintained the capacity to rebuild his WMD programs in a short amount of time, and that he was actively undercutting the sanctions against him. Given the multiple sources of pre-war intelligence, as well as the findings of the Duelfer Report, there is little evidence to support the Rycroft memo.

In order to address failures with pre-war intelligence, however, I worked closely with my colleagues in the 108 th Congress to construct and pass a comprehensive intelligence reform bill, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (S. 2845) which became public law on December 17, 2004. I also supported Ambassador John Negroponte to be the first Director of National Intelligence for the United States and oversee this major intelligence reorganization.

Thank you once again for contacting me. I value your advice. If I may be of further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

I received the same form letter: the usual mishmash of disinformation and misdirection. It's not the Downing Street Memo, but "a British memo about pre-Iraq war intelligence." In the Marines we were taught "You can't snow the Troops." But, evidently, Senator Coleman believes he can snow the American people.

visit http://www.cdomusic.com/music_military.htm and listen to "Thank You", "Freedom Isn't Free" or "Your Long Journey Home" to see why the the memory of our troops must be honored by the truth whatever it may be.

Dear Senator,
If, as has been rumored, you seriously believe that the President "made an honest mistake...based on faulty intelligence" in deciding to take military action against Iraq, then I can only presume you have not been reading what an increasing number of us "ordinary citizens" have, despite the abysmal job the media has done in reporting on this affair which has not only resulted in the slaughter of tens of thousands of humen beings, but also has potentially grave Constitutional ramifications. I respectfully suggest that you more fully inform yourself and possibly take some advice and counsel from your colleague and "elder"; The Hon.Rep.John Conyers.
There are many of us out here in the country who were pulling for you in the recent elections and cheered your victory. We had hopes of a fresh wind blowing through Congress and cleaning out some of the crap.This does not seem to be a particularly auspicious beginning, especially considering the import of the matter in question. Please review, reconsider and consider joining with those of your Senatorial colleagues who are now starting to ask the difficult but essential questions. It is not always easy or comfortable to be in the vanguard, it takes a special kind of courage, but desperate times.... .
This Administration has possibly committed "high crimes and misdemeanours" in the process of taking us to war, the death and destruction continues; This Supreme Court has ruled it is "legal" for the State to sieze a citizen's home and property and transfer ownership to private commercial interests. This madness and erosion of our civil rights, liberties and freedoms has to cease. The first step must be to halt the momentum of this Corporate War Machine and the incipient fascism that appears to be propelling it. The truth must be told to the People.
PLEASE, step up to the plate, this is not the time for our future Leaders to be sitting on the bench.
Sincerely,
Patrick Monk.RN.

This Country needs some peace ( Peace of mind )
Bush is a greedy Graft Monger that put our Brave Men & Women in harms way for OIL with Malice & Forethought. He stole the election from Gore & The American People or should I say he bought the election. Please have know doubt this was all done with two thoughts in mind Greed & Oil.
Sincerely An American Registered Voter

Mr. Obama I a vietnam veteran and it seems to me you are another one of those in a responsible position that no nothing about wearing the uniform of the u.s. military. The code of conduct for the military service in part goes "I am an American fighting man dedicated to the principles of liberty and justice". You see a mighty oath that requires devine obediance. It's all you have late in the night alone in a foreign land on guard when your number is called. Maybe if you had put your life on the line for such a great ideal you wouldn't wimp out saying bush's intelligence was flawed. He's not a man but you have a chance to be a real man at a time when your country needs you. You don't send brave men to their death on a lie so halliburton can get paid. Each letter in this email represents a dead soldier. They deserve that no death be in vai

Thank you for writing me about the "Downing Street" memo, which recently surfaced in Great Britain. This memo was written by British national security aide Mathew Rycroft based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of Mr.Blair and his advisers, including Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had recently met with Bush administration officials.
Please know that the Senate vote on the resolution to authorise the use of force in Iraq was difficult and consequential based on hours of intelligence briefings from Administration and intelligence officials, as well as the classified and unclassified versions of an important National Intelligence Estimate that comprehensively assessed Iraq's WMD program.It was based on trust that this intelligence was the best our Nation's inteligence services could offer, and fairly presented. In this case it was not.
The bottom line is that Iraq did not possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in 2003 when the war began. Saddam Hussein did not have an active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program. Considering the statements that were being made by the Administration, and the intelligence that was presented to Congress which said otherwise, this is quite disturbing and points once again to failures in the analysis, collection and use of intelligence.
In order to address these intelligence failures, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform bill, which i voted for. This law will make consequential changes to the structure and organisation of 15 agencies which make up our intelligence capabilities. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I will be sure to monitor this issue closely.
Again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to keep me informed of your views and concerns. If you should have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, DC. staff at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov.
Sincerely yours.
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator.

Thank you for contacting me about the war in Iraq. I appreciate hearing from you.
I recently travelled to Iraq and would like to share my thoughts with you regarding my experiences. Meeting with our nation's brave service men and women was truly inspiring. I admire and appreciate their courage, skill and devotion to duty. In order to best support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I voted for the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to get them the equipment and support they need.
However, my trip to Iraq confirmed my view that the United States must set a timetable to withdraw our forces. I agree with retired Marine Corps General Gregory Newbold, one of the prime planners of the war in Iraq, who proposes that we set a goal for withdrawal. I believe our long-term presence in Iraq is becoming counter productive.
I recently joined with Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) in sponsoring a resolution calling on the Bush Administration to provide Congress with a timeframe for achieving its military goals in Iraq and withdrawing troops from Iraq. I believe it is time that the Administration disclose its plan for Iraq so that we know what our mission is and how we will accomplish it. It is time that we stop fighting this war with no plan and no end in sight.
Please know that for as long as our troops remain in harm's way, I will continue to push for an international effort to reduce the hardship on our troops while increasing the pace of training Iraqi Security Forces.
Once again, thank you for your letter and for caring deeply about this critical matter.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator.

Thank you for contacting me with your views on the misuses of intelligence by the Bush Administration. I appreciate hearing from you.
In May 2005, the Sunday Times of London cited a previously secret British government memorandum which disclosed that by the summer of 2002, the United States and Great Britain had agreed to invade Iraq. Known as the Downing Street Memo, this memo alleges that because of President Bush's determination to act militarily in Iraq, intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy of military action.
In light of the Downing Street Memo, I recently joined Senators Kerry, Lautenberg, Durbin, Johnson, Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, Corzine, and Reid in urging the Senate Intelligence Committee to examine the use of intelligence by policy makers. As we stated in our letter, "the American public must have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence judiciously never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States. Thev contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can restore it."
The American people want and need accurate information from our intelligence community and straight talk from our political leaders. I voted against granting the President the authority to wage a unilateral war against Iraq, and I will continue to push the Bush Administration to develop a foreign policy based on sound intelligence rather than molding intelligence to fit a preexisting agenda.
Once again, thank you for you letter and for caring deeply about this critical matter.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator.

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Downing Street Memo. I appreciate you contacting me.

As you know, The Times of London, UK, published this document on May 1, 2005. It remains one of the most viewed articles on their Web site.

This July 2002 memo was written by Blair aide Matthew Rycroft. It summarizes a visit to Washington, D.C., by Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence. Since its publication, several Members of Congress have written a letter to President Bush requesting an explanation of its contents.

As you may have heard, President Bush did comment on the memo, as has British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Both emphatically denied the allegation that intelligence had been "fixed".

As you know, our intelligence has been an issue discussed, and rightly so. As you may know, Section 357 of the FY2004 Intelligence Authorization Act--that Congress passed and is now law--required the Director of Central Intelligence to submit a report to Congress on the intelligence leading up to military action in Iraq.

In addition, Congress also passed the Intelligence Reform bill. President Bush signed this bill into law on December 17, 2004. This legislation created the Director of National Intelligence position to oversee our 15 intelligence agencies. It also created the National Counter Terrorism Center to achieve improved coordination across departmental lines.

I hope this information is of help. Again, thanks for taking the time to write. Please do not hesitate to call on me whenever you have questions or concerns about your federal government. I remain,

Thank you for contacting me regarding our policy in Iraq, particularly in regard to the faulty intelligence that was presented to the United Nations and Congress on the eve of war. I agree the contents of the Downing Street memo are very troubling, and you can rest assured that I will be looking into this matter very closely. I suspect this subject will remain a topic of heated public debate for some time, and I certainly understand your concerns.

I share your general disappointment at the Administration’s handling of the Iraq war, which has put us in a position where leaving that country risks chaos and staying has immeasurable financial and social costs. An immediate priority for Congress must be to ensure that the American people are getting truthful and accurate information about when and how we will bring our troops home, and that our soldiers, guardsmen and reservists receive all the benefits they are entitled to on their return.

In regard to the faulty intelligence we now know existed before the war, I understand why you and many members of Congress feel as though they were duped by the Administration. I cannot fault anyone -- members of Congress or the American citizen -- for feeling as though this nation was manipulated into war. It is my hope that this experience will serve as a lesson to the intelligence community and future administrations that they will be held accountable for the information they present to the country and should think twice before letting policy bias override hard intelligence. We should hope that the criticism engendered by the Iraq case will prevent similar mistakes in the future.

Thank you again for your message, M. Please do not hesitate to keep in touch on this or any issue of concern to you.

Thank you for expressing your opinion about the U.S. military presence in Iraq. I appreciate hearing from you.
In addressing calls for an "exit stategy" from Iraq, let me simply say that it is irresponsible for political leaders to demand artificial time-tables for the end of military operations. Our exit strategy has been clear since day-one and is not related to a fixed date and time but to the completion of our national security objectives. Most of the opposition leadership in Congress recognize this. Although a few fringe leaders have made news headlines by appealing to liberal populism, the vast majority of responsible leaders in Washington understand the importance of our mission. Clearly, our military must remain in Iraq until Iraqis are able to protect their growing democracy. In short, as Iraqi security forces are trained and deployed, I will support a scaling back of our presence in the Country. Until then, I will vote to provide our soldiers the resources they need to win the fight.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please feel free to call or write again if you have any additional questions or concerns. You can also visit me online a www.nunes.house.gov for up-to-date information on House activities.

Though I have not yet been able to verify the contents of that memo, its contents, if true, are disconcerting. Given my concern about this issue, I have contacted the British Embassy here in Washington.

I will keep your comments in mind as I try to get to the bottom of this issue.

Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,

Ken Salazar
United States Senator

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about our country's leadership. I appreciate you taking the time to write.

I do believe that President Bush has truthfully stated the reasons to go to war in Iraq. In doing so we have maintained a coalition with many other countries throughout the world, including Britain. I do feel that the President has done a good job at trying to rebuild Iraq. It will not be an easy or quickly resolved task, but we will do our best to help Iraq to become a stable and productive country.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at http://allard.senate.gov.

Dear Mr. Allard,
If this so called "Downing Street Memo" is correct, it implies conspiracy and treason by what it says "fixing the intelligence" around the justification for military invasion. I really think you must reread the memo because you "as I said" are missing the point.
Thank You,
Michael R. McKenzie
Saginaw, Michigan

"Dear Patrick,
We did it. In less than 24 hours, more than 25,000 of you emailed and phoned your Senators, urging them to support our bipartisan amendment to reinstate the moratorium on human pesticide testing. Thanks to your vocal Lobbying effort, our amendment passed on the Senate floor by a vote of 60-37 Wednesday. You really helped turn the tide. Until the last few hours prior to the vote, we did not have the votes. But your personal advocacy changed that. This is a huge victory for ethics and morality in science, and a huge victory for the men, women and children who would otherwise be subjected to these cruel and inhumane tests. I can't thank you enough for your help and support on this critical issue.
So that's some good news for this week. But, while I'm writing to you, I also wanted to take just a moment to respond to President Bush's speech about Iraq Tuesday night.
Frankly I was disappointed and discouraged by The President's speech. The American people deserved to hear much more from the President about what our mission is in Iraq, how he intends to succeed in that mission, how long it will take,and how much it will cost.
President Bush's use of Osama Bin Laden's words to defend America's policies was bizarre in the extreme. And his continued attempts to link the Iraq War to September 11th is a myth. In fact on September 11th, according to George Bush's own State Department, there was not one Al Queda cell in Iraq ! As a result of this President's misguided war, Iraq is now a training ground for terrorists, and refusing to set a goal for withdrawal is only further fueling the insurgency.
The President defended his war and now says our mission is to "hunt down the terrorists". This mission has changed so many times it's hard to keep track--from finding WMD's, to removing Saddam Hussein, to holding elections, to rebuilding Iraq, to training Iraqis to defend their country, and now to "hunting down the terrorists".
President Bush also missed a golden opportunity on Tuesday night to pledge to our troops that they would get all the equipment they need on the battlefield and all the health care they need when they come home.
All in all, the President defended the status quo and gave very little hope for an exit to this horrible quagmire. Now, it falls to Congress to demand accountability from this administration and a clear exit strategy to ease the incredible strain on our troops, many of whom have had three tours of duty !
I'll be providing more of my own views on Iraq in a speech next week, so stay tuned for more on this important issue in the coming days.
Thanks again for your continued support !
In Friendship,
Barbara Boxer.

PS. More than 100,000 people have already emailed the White House, urging the President to withdraw John Bolton's nomination as U.N. Ambassador. But with the Senate out next week, there's still a chance that President Bush will try to sneak in a recess appointment--bypassing the Senate's advice and consent responsibility entirely. So if you haven't yet emailed the White House about John Bolton, please do it now. And then invite everyone you know to send their own message."

Six (6) Representatives, Washington state signed the Conyer's Letter to President, Downing Street Minutes.

Listed;

Brian Baird

Norman Dicks

Jay Inslee

Rick Larsen

Adam Smith

Jim McDermott

Sent letters to Senators Murray and Cantwell re; DSM on June 17, 2005 using formatted letter from tool kit; added this paragraph

' We are a military family, with 2 loved ones, now combat Iraq veterans having served and both are facing 2nd deployments to Iraq. I am a speaking out member of Military Families Speak Out and I do NOT want to have to wear another hat, Cindy Sheehan's Gold Star Families for Peace. Membership requirement; a loved one killed in Iraq. "

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about the Downing Street Memo, which suggests that President Bush intentionally misled the American people while trying to push his political agenda, especially related to the war in Iraq . I appreciate hearing from you.
To date, over 500,000 citizens and 127 members of Congress, including myself, have sent letters to the President requesting the investigation of reports of a pre-war deal between the United Kingdom and the United States involving the assertion that pre-war intelligence was intentionally manipulated in order to justify going to war with Iraq .
We, the public, have a right to know if we were purposely misled by the Administration in its justification for going to war. In May, the London Times revealed a 'leaked' British intelligence document referred to as the Downing Street Memo. Specifically, the memo states that 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD'. The Memo goes on to say that the 'intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'.
These are very serious charges - that the Bush Administration intentionally misused intelligence to deceive the American public into supporting a war in Iraq .
This is not the first time the Democrats in Congress have attempted to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its actions surrounding the war in Iraq . Many Democrats in Congress, including House Minority Leader Pelosi, supported legislation introduced by Rep. Waxman to establish an independent commission -- modeled after the September 11 Commission -- to examine both the Iraq intelligence and the representations made by executive branch officials about this intelligence. This legislation was cosponsored by more than 135 members of Congress, however, the Republican Majority and the White House have blocked any attempts to establish any truly independent investigations.
Furthermore, following a series of New York Times articles in February, 2005, the lead Democrats on the House Committee for Government Reform sent a letter to the Chairman requesting that the Committee hold hearings to investigate what they felt were two very serious questions raised by the New York Times : the first was whether the Administration misused the classification process to withhold, for political reasons, official 9/11 Commission staff findings detailing how federal aviation officials received multiple intelligence reports warning of airline hijackings and suicide attacks before September 11th. The second issue related to the veracity of statements, briefings, and testimony by then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice surrounding this issue. Rice is also revealed in the Downing Street Memo to have stated that she "[had] no patience with the U.N. route".
My colleagues and I continue to pursue the truth. In June, we requested that the House Committees on Intelligence, International Relations and Armed Services hold hearings to investigate the allegations raised by the Downing Street Memo. We also submitted a Freedom of Information Act inquiry requesting the disclosure of all agency records related to the Downing Street Memo.
I fully support the efforts to hold hearings on all of these issues. It is vital that the current Administration not be allowed to use partisan politics to stand in the way of our national security. Leaving these crucial questions unanswered undermines the very fabric of our great democracy. Such an act would justify and set a precedent for our leaders to make choices without considering the needs of those they serve.
Again, thank you for taking the time to communicate with me. I always appreciate hearing about the issues that are important to you.

Thank you for your letter regarding the memo from a high-level British meeting about the war in Iraq that was leaked to the Times of London. I commend you for taking such an active interest in global affairs.

First of all, it is very important that we get our facts straight in this matter. The memo in question was not sent from the President to the British. The "secret" memo was the minutes of a high-level meeting of British officials which included Prime Minister Blair and other members of his cabinet. The crux of the memo was the report of a man identified as "C" about his recent trip to Washington and his subsequent feeling that "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the war in mid-2002. There is no evidence to support this allegation by an unamed source.

After September 11, 2001, the President and our allies could not take any chances with the possibility of deadly weapons finding their way into the hands of terrorists who would certainly seek to use them. Saddam Hussein had flouted 17 UN resolutions since the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and the intelligence given to the President clearly indicated Hussein possessed an active weapons program and weapons of mass destruction. Hussein had previously used chemical weapons to kill many of his own people and invaded Iraq's neighbors both in Kuwait and Iran. Acting on the best information available, the President, with the approval of Congress, acted to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Even former President Clinton felt - based on the intelligence available to him - that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Many of the intelligence weaknesses in the American policy-making process are being addressed by massive intelligence reform per the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which also led to the creation of the Director of National Intelligence position to organize our fifteen intelligence entities. As a member of the Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs, I intend to closely monitor the impact of this reorganization on intelligence gathering.

I believe it is important to remember that the debate in the UN over going to war with Iraq was not based upon whether Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction or not, but was simply a matter of process in terms of how long inspections would be allowed to continue before force was used. Saddam had long thumbed his nose at UN inspectors and resolutions and possessed the capability to produce these weapons, which still made him a clear and present danger to the United States.

The claim that the war in Iraq has not been waged on a sound legal footing is simply false. This is evidenced by UN Resolution 1382, which promised "serious consequences" if Saddam Hussein failed to comply with inspections and dismantle his WMD program. Furthermore, the President sought Senate approval to go to war which he received by an overwhelming margin of 77-23. Since the war was waged under a sound legal rationale and the administration did not "cook the books" in terms of intelligence, it is difficult to get to the place where one can challenge the President's integrity.

I believe the President did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein from power. I think the second-guessing by some members of Congress, at this point, only serves to help the insurgents in this conflict as it undermines the morale of our troops and strengthens the resolve of our enemies. I therefore must decline to sign on to the partisan letter being circulated by House Democrats which you mention.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning comments made by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

On June 22, Mr. Rove delivered a speech at a New York State Conservative Party event that later drew calls for an apology by some, particularly in the Democratic Party.

In my view, there are times when comments truly cross the line of decent public discourse and demand rebuke, and then there are other times when someone says something that is simply fodder for the other side of the political aisle. There are plenty of examples of the latter that both Republicans and Democrats have seized upon to make their respective political points, but I am content to leave their debate to the political parties and for the court of public opinion to ultimately render a judgment.

Thank you once again for contacting me. I always appreciate hearing from you and I value your advice. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of further assistance to you. Email.beginhide.merge

Sincerely,

A

Norm Coleman

United States Senate

P.S. Due to increased security precautions, mail delivery to the U.S. Senate may be unpredictably delayed by days or weeks. I apologize for the delay in receiving and responding to your letter.

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for an investigation into the actions of President George W. Bush and the Bush Administration's justification for going to war with Iraq . I am pleased to learn your views and appreciate the opportunity to share mine.

Like you, I believe it is critical that the Bush Administration come clean with the American people about its justifications for going to war with Iraq , especially in light of recent revelations about the Administration's war planning included in the so-called Downing Street Memo. For this reason, I, along with several of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, sent a letter to President Bush asking him to answer a series of questions, including whether the Administration sought the support for the war from U.S. allies before seeking Congressional authorization to go to war and whether the there was an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons of mass destruction in order to help with the justification for the war. While I have yet to receive a response from the President, please be assured that I will continue to work to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its actions leading our country into war with Iraq .

Again, thank you for letting me know your views. Please feel free to visit my website at www.house.gov/degette where you can sign up for my e-newsletter to stay up-to-date on current events on Capitol Hill. I look forward to our continued communication.

Though I have not yet been able to verify the contents of that memo, its contents, if true, are disconcerting. Given my concern about this issue, I have contacted the British Embassy here in Washington.

I will keep your comments in mind as I try to get to the bottom of this issue.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about our country's
leadership. I appreciate you taking the time to write.

I do believe that President Bush has truthfully stated the reasons to go
to war in Iraq. In doing so we have maintained a coalition with many
other countries throughout the world, including Britain. I do feel that
the President has done a good job at trying to rebuild Iraq. It will not
be an easy or quickly resolved task, but we will do our best to help Iraq
to become a stable and productive country.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing
from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to
Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website athttp://allard.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
A
Wayne Allard
United States Senator

WA:st

Because of a vendor email problem, this may be a duplicate email. If that
is the case, we apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your
understanding.

Thank you for contacting me concerning the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and the Bush administration’s public case for war in Iraq.

When I supported the decision to go to war, I voted based on the
intelligence analysis presented to the Congress by the Administration at the time. In recent weeks, there has been increasing concern over the accuracy of that intelligence. While intelligence analysis is by nature an imprecise science, we must do everything possible to generate accurate intelligence assessments communicated with objectivity and balance so that the nation may take appropriate action.

Regardless of how one feels about the process that brought us to
Iraq, the United States now has a clear interest in the creation of a
stable state that is not a threat to its neighbors or the rest of the
world. It is important that the U.S. remain committed and engaged in Iraq to ensure that a successful democracy takes root, moving forward the process of reconciliation and reconstruction.

Like all Americans, I am grateful for and respect the service of our soldiers and the sacrifices of their families. I appreciate your being informed about this vital issue for our country, and I will keep your views in mind as the situation develops. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future on any other issue.

I'm sorry, but I'm giving up. I received the "exact" same response from Senator Nelson. Subsequent e-mails are now receiving no response at all. He is ignoring any calls for activism. It's a shame, but I guess we really have no one to blame except ourselves. One good thing we have to be proud of, at least we were the world's last great empire, before WWIII.

We can still vote in the mid term elections.
For the first time in my life I have decided to be a single issue voter. I will cast my vote for the candidate that will make the best case to vote for impeachment and hopefully removal from office.

If we don't give up and help just one more person change their mind. We will double our numbers!

Thank you for contacting me to support investigating the Downing Street Memo. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

You should know that in mid-June, I joined Congressman John Conyers and several of my colleagues in sending a second letter to
President Bush to request an explanation of the allegations charged in the Downing Street Memo, as first reported in the London
Times. This document suggests that the United States and Great Britain had already decided to invade Iraq before the White House
sought Congressional approval.

It is imperative that the American public be given straightforward and honest answers about the Administration's justification
for invading Iraq. Our government is responsible to the people it represents and I believe it is time for the current
administration to detail the intelligence which ultimately led to the war in Iraq.

Again, thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts. I hope all is well in Lake Stevens, and I look forward to future
correspondence.

Thank you for contacting me with your views on the
Downing Street memo. I appreciate hearing from you.

There has been some press coverage recently over a series
of documents called the Downing Street memos. These memos
were written by a foreign policy aide for the British government in
July of 2002, before the Iraq war started. Some feel that these
documents prove President Bush manufactured intelligence to
support his decision to declare war on Saddam Hussein.

The validity of these documents is questionable. The
Times of London reporter who broke this story, Michael Smith,
told a suspicious tale to explain how he obtained these confidential
government reports. The Associated Press reports that, to protect
his sources, Smith made copies of the original reports, typed them
on an old-fashioned typewriter, made several copies to give the
appearance that the documents were originals, and then burned his
original copies. To go through such a process merely to protect a
source is unnecessary and inexplicable. The origin of these
documents is suspicious at best.

It is important that I hear from you. Please feel free to
contact me again with comments or concerns on matters that are
important to you.

Thank you for your e-mail message. It was good to hear from you. I regret the delay in my response. I receive more than one thousand letters and e-mails each week and cannot respond to each one personally as quickly as I would like.

I also appreciate you taking the time to share with me your suggestion that President Bush be impeached. Although you and I may oppose many of the President’s actions, I must tell you it would be nearly impossible to impeach this President, given the strong Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. However, I can assure you I will keep your comments in mind, and, when circumstances call for it, my colleagues and I will continue to speak out against the administration. In the meantime, I will do all I can to hold
President Bush accountable while fighting for San Diego families and our core values in Congress.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. As your representative, I both need and value your perspective. Please sign up for my E-Newsletter on my website, www.house.gov/susandavis, if you would like to receive monthly updates about what is happening in Congress.

Thank you for contacting me in support of a Congressional investigation into the so-called Downing Street memo. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

Since the end of the first Gulf War, the United Nations had passed a number of resolutions calling for Saddam Hussein to stop the development of chemical and biological weapons and end eggregious human rights violations. He had ignored them all and continued to flout international law. Even so, the United States and its allies went back to the UN, which resulted in the November 2002 UN resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law.

The so-called Downing Street memo was written before the U.S. and its allies went to the UN for the final resolution. At the time, the U.S. and its allies were looking for a way to resolve this conflict without war. You may be assured I will continue to monitor this situation.

*******************

This is the fax I sent him -

Rep. Stearns,
The time has come for you and your fellow Republicans to put loyalty to the Constitution above loyalty to the Republican party and the President. You swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, now you must do so!
The Downing Street Memos make it clear that George W. Bush "fixed" the facts around a pre-determined policy to invade Iraq. Not only that, he began the war on Iraq months before he asked Congress for authority to invade, all the while insisting that evry effort was being made to avert war.
It is beyond blatantly obvious that George W. Bush, as well as many other administration officials, knowingly lied to the public and Congress about when and why we went to war in Iraq. It is your constitutional obligation to at least investigate the Downing Street Memos to determine if George W. Bush (and others) should have impeachment charges brought against them. As your constituent, I expect, and will accept, no less.
I look forward to your response.

Since October, 2002, when I voted against our use of military force in
Iraq, I have remained critical of the Bush Administration's handling of
this war. The classified Downing Street memo, which was produced by
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's staff, gives minutes of his meeting
with government defense and intelligence officials on July 23, 2002. The
document alleges that the Bush Administration was already committed to
going to war against Iraq in the summer of 2002, and suggests that the
Administration manipulated intelligence to support their case to go to
war.

This memo simply asserts what my colleagues and I have been saying for
years–that the Administration was not adequately prepared, neither with
evidence nor with a plan for peace, to take our servicemen and women into
war. However, I strongly support our troops in the Middle East and around
the world. These self-sacrificing men and women have left behind their
families to serve their country, and it is my belief that Congress must do
everything in its power to provide these servicemembers with the
protection and benefits they need and deserve.

As a strong supporter of an open and transparent government, I welcome
Congressional investigations into the Downing Street memo and other
pre-war intelligence. The American people deserve nothing less than the
truth.

Again, thank you for taking the time to be in touch with me. Please do
not hesitate to contact me again, if you have any other questions or
concerns.

Dear Mr Monk,
Thankyou for your letter about removing the president from office because of intelligence failures prior to the invasion of Iraq. I appreciate you taking the time to write and I welcome the opportunity to respond. I regret that we disagree on this issue since I do not support the impeachment of the president on these grounds.
First, the Constitution details that the president may be removed from office if he is impeached and convicted of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanours, which leaves the basis for impeachment open to some interpretation. The actual process for impeaching a president involves the House of Representatives acting
as the prosecutor and bringing relevant charges against the president. The Senate then acts as the jury and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as the judge, together responsible for trying the president.
Second, the Senate vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq was difficult and consequential based on hours of intelligence briefings from Administration and intelligence officials,as well as the classified and unclassified versions of an important National Intelligence Estimate that comprehensively assessed Iraq's WMD program. It was based on trust that this intelligence was the best our Nation's intelligence services could offer, untainted by bias, and fairly presented. In this case it was not.
"The bottom line is that Iraq did not possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in 2003 when the war began. Saddam Hussein did not have an active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program. Considering the statements that were being made by the Administration, and the intelligence that was presented to Congress which said otherwise, this is quite disturbing and points once again to failures in the analysis, collection and use of intelligence."
In order for Congress to address these intelligence failures, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform bill, which I voted for. This law will make consequential changes to the structure and organisation of the 15 agencies which make up our intelligence capabilities. Please know that as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I will be sure to continue to monitor this issue closely.
*****************************************************

Phew !!!!, spin, obfuscation and denial worthy of Karl Rove.
We'll get them yet. No retreat - No surrender. patrickmonk.rn.

Below is the response I received from Senator Tom Coburn. I must say that he is the only senator that does respond to me when I email him. The last correspondence I received from Senator Jim Inhofe (R) was in reference to the Customer Checking Account Fairness Act and that was in April. Since then he has not bothered to respond to any of my eamils.

I can say at least I am TRYING, which I can not say for the Congressman and Senators that are SUPPOSE to REPRESENT the PEOPLE IN THEIR STATE!

Thank you for your letter regarding the so-called "Downing Street Memo" from a high-level British meeting about the war in Iraq that was reported in the Times of London.

I must respectfully decline to support a Congressional investigation
into the President's decision to go to war with Iraq. The President made it clear in his June 6th press conference with Prime Minister Blair that it is inaccurate to suggest that the decision to go to war had already been made prior to his presenting the case against Saddam Hussein to the United Nations (UN). The President went on to say with the Prime Minister in resolute agreement- that war was their last option in dealing with Saddam.
Numerous efforts were made to make Saddam comply with UN resolutions
but he disregarded these efforts.

The "Downing Street Memo" was the minutes of a high-level meeting of
British officials which included Prime Minister Blair and other members of his cabinet. The crux of the memo was the report of a man now identified as Richard Dearlove, the head of British Secret Intelligence Service sometimes known as MI6, (the original article simply named him "C") about his recent trip to Washington and his subsequent feeling that "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the war in mid-2002. Both the 9/11 Commission and the British investigation into this subject has found no evidence to substantiate Dearlove's claim. Whether his was an attempt to undermine Tony Blair during the recent British elections is unclear, but what is clear is the Bush administration was looking at all options in terms of dealing with Saddam, which is not an illegal or unexpected action.

The claim that the President manipulated intelligence to bolster the
case for war is simply not true. After September 11, 2001, the
President and our allies could not take any chances with the possibility of deadly weapons finding their way into the hands of terrorists who would certainly seek to use them. Saddam Hussein had flouted 17 UN resolutions since the end of the 1991 Gulf War and the intelligence presented to the President clearly indicated Saddam possessed an active weapons program and weapons of mass destruction. Hussein had previously used chemical weapons to kill many of his own people and invaded Iraq's neighbors, both in Kuwait and
Iran. Acting on the best information that was available, the
President,with the approval of Congress, acted to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Even former President Clinton felt - based on the intelligence available to him at the time - that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

The allegation that the President acted illegally in deciding for the
U.S. to go to war with Iraq is simply false. The war in Iraq has been waged on a sound legal and Constitutional footing. The U.S. House and Senate approved the use of force in Iraq and UN Resolution 1382 promised "serious consequences" if Saddam Hussein failed to comply with inspections and dismantle his WMD program. Furthermore, the 2002 meeting featured in the memo was held before the United States went back to the UN for a second time and secured UN Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote from the Security Council.

UN resolution 1441 begs the question: Why would the President seek to
make his case before the United Nations a second time if he had already made his decision to go to war prior to going to New York to address the General Assembly?

The President sought Senate approval to go to war which he received by an overwhelming margin of 77-23. These senators received the same
intelligence on Iraq as the President.

Since the war has been waged on a sound legal and Constitutional
grounds and with no real evidence that the administration distorted
intelligence, it is difficult to conclude that the President is guilty of a crime.

I believe the President did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein
from power. Second-guessing this decision, at this point, only serves to encourage the insurgents in this conflict and undermine the morale of our troops who are fighting to stabilize Iraq. During this difficult time when our nation is at war not only in Iraq but against terrorists around the world, we must stand united in our efforts to protect our nation and secure peace around the world. I therefore must again decline to support any investigation into the Bush administration's decision to go to war
at this time.

Thank you for contacting my office about the current
situation in Iraq. I appreciate hearing your thoughts and have
similar concerns over the impact of the war on Iraq and the Iraqi
people. Yet, I have complete confidence that the United States and
our international partners have the ability and perseverance to
rebuild Iraq and establish a stable and healthy society for the Iraqi
people. The sooner a stable society and representative government
take root in Iraq, the sooner it will cease to be a haven for terrorism
- and the safer America and the Iraqi people will be. More
importantly, sincere and well skilled Iraqis, and you, will play an
important role in this process.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee,
which has received numerous briefings on post-war Iraq
reconstruction, I am pleased with the efforts that have been made
so far with regard to the reconstruction of the country. While I am
deeply troubled by the acts that were committed at Abu Gharib, I
am grateful for the sacrifices that our troops and reconstruction
team have made, through the coalition provisional authority, as
they have worked to secure and build a new nation, absent the
horrific dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Please be assured that I
will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and the
Administration to ensure that the best interests of the Iraqi people,
as well as, the security of the United States are met.

Again thank you for contacting my office and sharing your
unique perspective.
Sincerely,
Buck McKeon
Member of Congress

I understand that you are the most knowledgeable person in Representative Lantos' office on this subject. I've been unsuccessful in getting a confirmation of Tom's support. Could you please report the status of expected cosponsorship of this legislation?

Although George W. Bush was certainly not my choice for
President of the United States, and on most issues, I strongly
disagree with him, I do not support an attempt to remove him from
office by impeachment.

An attempt to impeach President Bush would be viewed as
politically motivated, as was the drive to impeach President Bill
Clinton. You'll recall, I'm sure, that the votes to impeach Clinton
were highly partisan with only five Democrats voting for
impeachment. Given that the Republican party is the majority
party in the House and, therefore, controls the scheduling of all
hearings, committee meetings and legislative activities, it's pretty
clear that a Republican Speaker would never permit even the first
step in impeachment proceedings.

Also, even should the impossible happen, and Bush were
removed from office, I would not be pleased to see Vice President
Cheney assume the presidency.

Finally, I believe the restructuring of Iraq, the creation of
rational homeland security measures, and fighting the damaging
Bush tax cuts require all of our attention and energy now. We
simply cannot afford the expense, the damaging divisiveness and
the all-consuming attention required to take on what is a hopeless
cause. [Lameness emphasized]

An attempt to impeach President Bush would be viewed as
politically motivated, as was the drive to impeach President Bill
Clinton. You'll recall, I'm sure, that the votes to impeach Clinton
were highly partisan...

apples and oranges. this is the difference between
"Politics: the process by which a community's decisions are made, rules for group behavior are established, competition for positions of leadership is regulated, and the disruptive effects of disputes are minimized." (www.anthro.wayne.edu/ant2100/GlossaryCultAnt.htm)
and
"Partisanship is the tendency of supporters of political parties to subscribe to or at least support their party's views and policies in contrast to those of other parties. Differentiation is essential to most political parties: they must be different at least in some ways to other parties to compete in politics and win elections. Extreme partisanship is sometimes referred to as partisan warfare." [emphasis mine]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_politics)

Furthermore, the vast majority of American citizens did not support the impeachment, much less the removal, of a president who simply couldn't keep it in his pants. A majority of Americans do believe impeachment is appropriate for a president and a vice-president who committed the treasonous act of misleading the public and Congress alike so as to pursue their own ill-conceived and well-concealed agendas.

Also, even should the impossible happen, and Bush were
removed from office, I would not be pleased to see Vice President
Cheney assume the presidency.

That would be what I call out of the frying pan and into the fire. This is why they must both be impeached simultaneously.

Finally, I believe the restructuring of Iraq, the creation of
rational homeland security measures, and fighting the damaging
Bush tax cuts require all of our attention and energy now. We
simply cannot afford the expense, the damaging divisiveness and
the all-consuming attention required to take on what is a hopeless
cause.

Apparently this congresscritter believes it is better to deal with a thousand spouts of bile and disease issuing forth than to sever the heads from which this foulness emanates. Don't wait for me at your party.

You contacted me about my absence from the International
Relations Committee vote on H. Res. 505, a resolution of inquiry
requesting that the president provide to the House of
Representatives all documents related to the co-called "White
House Iraq Group."

You're right to feel angry and disappointed that I missed
that vote, and I owe you and all of my constituents an apology.

I had scheduled several events in Los Angeles related to the
special election on Tuesday, November 8th. I returned to
Washington on Wednesday morning, but my plane did not arrive
until after the committee had finished voting on H. Res. 505. I
had scheduled those events before I leaned that the committee
would be taking up this important bill and my mistake was in not
canceling them and leaving Los Angeles to return to Washington
on Tuesday.

Had I been there, I assure you that I would have voted yes,
as I did on other resolutions of inquiry related to the Downing
Street memo and the Valerie Plame leak.

While H. Res. 505 failed by two votes and my presence
would not have changed the outcome, I should have been there.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding U.S. military forces withdrawing from Iraq and H.J. Res. 55, the Homeward Bound Act. It is good to hear from you on this issue and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

On January 30, 2005, 8.5 million Iraqis voted in an historic election that was fair, transparent and democratic. They were not deterred by terrorists and sent a strong signal to the rest of the world that the Iraqi people are taking charge of their own destiny by displaying a strong desire for democracy, sovereignty and civil rights throughout Iraq. The Iraqi National Assembly has drafted a permanent constitution that is expected to be ratified in a nationwide referendum scheduled to take place this October.

Like you, I believe our brave men and women serving in Iraq should come home as soon as possible. However, we are at a stage now where we must not leave until the new Iraqi government is secure and Iraqi security forces are able to defend their country. While the number of troops in Iraq has been steadily decreasing, setting a firm withdrawal date has the potential to send a signal to the insurgents and terrorists throughout the world that we are giving up on Iraq regardless of status and that on a given date anarchy and disorder are free to prevail with the consent of the U.S.

H.J. Res. 55 was referred to the House Armed Services Committee and
awaits further legislative action. Please know that should this legislation
come before me on the House floor I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve you in
Washington. If you would like more information on issues, or would like to share your thoughts with me via e-mail, you may visit my website athttp://sullivan.house.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me again should you have further concerns on federal legislation or programs.

--end of his email message, no hard copy ever sent--

My reply:

Saturday, October 01, 2005
[via webform, at Rep. Sullivan’s homepage]

This is your idea of progress in the war on terrorism?

"Four years later, Osama bin Laden is still at large and there's not the slightest evidence that our vaunted government operations have made even a bit or progress in penetrating his operation. Terrorist attacks around the world have increased, not decreased. The U.S. military is overstretched and ill-used in an occupation that is going so poorly the few officials in touch with reality simply hope that it won't be too blindingly obvious the U.S. tail is between its legs when it leaves. Military morale and recruiting are in trouble. Anti-Americanism is increasing around the world, including among people who have seldom succumbed to it in the past." --Alan Bock, "Katrina and 9/11: Criminal Incompetence", http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=7210

This is your idea of democracy in action? and a constitutional basis for democracy in Iraq?

"Sunni Arab opposition to Iraq's draft constitution has increased the potential for instability.
Gen. George Casey, speaking at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said his prediction in July that "fairly substantial" troop withdrawals could begin next spring was based on a key assumption: that satisfactory progress on the political and security fronts would continue.
"Now this constitution has come out, and it didn't come out as the national compact that we thought it was going to be," he said.
"And there's division there ... and that caused the situation to change a little bit," Casey said.
Indeed, violence in Iraq has increased as Sunni insurgents strike at Shiites and try to undermine the October voting on the proposed constitution. At least 200 people have been killed in the past five days, including 13 U.S. service members.
In Princeton, N.J., on Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a rare reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq - nearly 2,000
In Iraq, the Sunni Arabs who ran the country under former President Saddam Hussein but represent a minority of the population, boycotted last January's elections and thus had a smaller voice in the drafting of the constitution.
Sunni leaders have urged their followers to reject the constitution, saying it would leave them weak compared to the Shiites and Kurds who were repressed under Saddam.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Thursday that if the Iraqis do not reach a political accommodation by the end of the year the Bush administration should consider a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. "We can't stay for an unlimited time, due to the strain on our forces," Levin said.
source: Sep 30, 9:56 PM EDT "U.S. commander doubts Iraq troop cutbacks" By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

"Attacks seemed staged to kill or maim as many civilians as possible, tearing through busy markets and commercial streets. At least 10 people were killed in Hillah and 102 in Balad. At least 22 of those killed both days were women and children.
Insurgents have vowed to derail the Oct. 15 referendum, opposed by Iraq's Sunni Arab minority, and the recent surge of violence has killed at least 200 people - including 13 U.S. service members - in the past five days.
The Sunni-led al-Qaida in Iraq, the most feared insurgent group, has declared "all-out war" on Shiites, and since a Shiite-majority government took power April 28, suicide bombers have killed at least 1,345 people, according to an Associated Press count.
Intimidating Shiites from voting in the referendum could boost Sunni attempts to reject the charter, and the tactic was having an effect among some in Balad and surrounding Shiite towns.
Mohammed Kadhim, 25, a Shiite shopkeeper in the town of Dujail, said he would not allow his family to vote. "I'm responsible for their safety after what happened in Balad, and what is happening in the whole country with the occupation forces and the government."
Hussein Ali, a 67-year-old Shiite in Balad, also said he would stay away from the polls. "I will not take part in this game that kills Iraqis," he said.
The sharpening Sunni-Shiite divide is a blow to hopes that the constitution would unite Iraqis and bring stability.
source: Sep 30, 10:40 PM EDT "Bombings kill 110 Shiites over two days" By ALI AL-FATLAWI, Associated Press Writer, in HILLAH, Iraq

You wrote, in a studied refusal to accept the civil war in Iraq for what it is:

"On January 30, 2005, 8.5 million Iraqis voted in an historic election that was fair, transparent and democratic. They were not deterred by terrorists and sent a strong signal to the rest of the world that the Iraqi people are taking charge of their own destiny by displaying a strong desire for democracy, sovereignty and civil rights throughout Iraq. The Iraqi National Assembly has drafted a permanent constitution that is expected to be ratified in a nationwide referendum scheduled to take place this October." –Rep. Sullivan

Meanwhile, the Iraqi administration which you are so keen to praise is well aware of Iraqi opposition to the U.S. Occupation Forces, the American troops who have sorely overstayed their welcome in Iraq, after liberating it from Saddam Hussein:

“[W]ith the notable exception of the Kurdish population, support for the American military among Iraqis is virtually nonexistent two and a half years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government. Before January's elections, polls taken by Sadoun Dulaimi (now the country's defense minister) indicated that 85 percent of Iraqis wanted a US withdrawal "as soon as possible." On a recent trip to the country, this journalist found that dissatisfaction with the occupation has, if anything, grown.

This morning (MLK holiday) I went to a "town meeting" organized by Rep. Mike Pence in Richmond, Indiana. There were something like 200 people there plus the community TV station videotaping and at least one local reporter who I spoke to at length afterward. I had planned out what I wanted to say so I could do it in only 4-5 sentences. I did add one sentence picking up on some comments he had made about the need to amend the Patriot Act to include more civil liberties protections. (I questioned whether that effort was useful since the White House claims the right to disregard or flat-out violate any law they don't like.) I ended by asking him whether as a member of House Judiciary he would support the Conyers' resolution calling for a Select Committee.

His response was basically non-committal, saying he wasn't familiar with the Conyers' proposal but would look into it. He then repeated the usual mis-information: that he understood that the only NSA wiretaps were on phone numbers for example that the CIA had found on Al Qaeda cell phones in Afghanistan, that the program had been approved by the House & Senate leadership _after_ they had consulted with legal counsel, that the program had been approved by judicial officers as well, etc. But as a conservative who had spoken at length about limited government, he also seemed somewhat open to consideration whether there have been abuses of executive power. I hadn't expected much support from him, but felt he did listen and that it was worth raising the issue in a public forum to at least expand the conversational space for the "i" word.

I'd like to encourage other people to use this kind of public forum to raise the issue with your reps in a more public way than letters or phone calls. A couple of friends came with me so it wasn't as scary.

They tell me that Casey plans to vote for the Supp. But will vote for a new bill, Salazar - ? I didn't get the other name on the bill, that they tell me will implement the Iraq study group recommendations.

I have not heard of this bill till now.

They did tell me, after I lobbied them to tell the Sen. how disappointed we were in that position and in his vote against Fiengold, that they cannot say for sure and doesn't want to quote him. They seemed to indicate that it was possible that Casey could still change his vote, but it sounded like a heavy lift to me.

They went on to say how the Sen. agrees with us in principal. I told them that he should vote his principals and put them into practice then.

OK. Just spoke with Nuku Ofori, Fatah's LD on Iraq.
He told me that Fatah was not taking a position until the actual language of the Bill was released, which it was today, and that he was to brief the Congressman on the bill.

He also told me that we can expect a "No" vote if there is no exit language in it, which seems to be the case.

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. I appreciate your thoughts on this matter and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Impeachment is a constitutional remedy used to address serious offenses against our system of government. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

As you know, on April 24, 2007, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced H.Res. 333, which sets forth articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney for alleged "high crimes and misdemeanors." H.Res. 333 charges the Vice President with purposely deceiving the American people and Congress by manipulating intelligence information about the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's relationship with al Qaeda. The resolution also contends that the Vice President is a liability to our homeland security and calls for impeachment based on his threatened military aggression against Iran without probable cause of a threat to the United States. Currently, H.Res. 333 been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Should this legislation reach the House floor, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch with me. Your interest and input are valued and I hope to hear from you in the future regarding other matters of importance. I encourage you to visit my website and sign up for my weekly e-newsletter at http://www.house.gov/reichert/ to learn more about other issues impacting the 8th Congressional District and our nation.

Support This Site

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.

User login

Username: *

Password: *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.